Another 16th-century youth wrote to his mother, also asking who would do his laundry. In response, he received a letter containing the following advice: "My sonne, thou knowest well the great love I have for thee. But 'tis time for thee to groweth the hell up and wash thine owne tighty whiteys like a bigge boy."

Kids were put to work @14 years of age pretty much in every society until recently. Child labor was only outlawed in the US in 1938. The concept of the "teenager" was devised by some Mad Ave hucksters back in the 50s.

many parents of 21st Century teenagers will nod their heads in recognition at St Bede's Eighth Century youths, who were "lean (even though they eat heartily), swift-footed, bold, irritable and active".

Fissile:Kids were put to work @14 years of age pretty much in every society until recently. Child labor was only outlawed in the US in 1938. The concept of the "teenager" was devised by some Mad Ave hucksters back in the 50s.

This. "Teenagers" were not a thing until the last century in anything other than the most literal sense. You were a child, then you were an adult. The change corresponds to increasingly universal education and the dominance of specialist techne in both basic quality of life and the larger cultural landscape. Those things require a significant non-productive training period for the typical citizen.

Hell, for a good chunk of the middle ages, as the article points out, "children" weren't a thing either. Either you were an infant and got a bit of a pass or you were expected to maintain basically the same standards of behavior and productivity as a modern adult-aged person scaled down to your approximate mass. A child was just a physically smaller, weaker person, beyond that no difference.

Gyrfalcon:many parents of 21st Century teenagers will nod their heads in recognition at St Bede's Eighth Century youths, who were "lean (even though they eat heartily), swift-footed, bold, irritable and active".

The children of nobles were commonly sent from vassals to serve their lords as pages and ladies in waiting where they were trained in courtly ways and educated to become adults (knights etc). This all sprung from the practice of a lord keeping the children of a vassal hostage to make him behave.

I wonder how much apprenticing was used to cement business relations. You wouldn't want to cheat someone at business if he was holding your children hostage.

Son of Thunder:Another 16th-century youth wrote to his mother, also asking who would do his laundry. In response, he received a letter containing the following advice: "My sonne, thou knowest well the great love I have for thee. But 'tis time for thee to groweth the hell up and wash thine owne tighty whiteys like a bigge boy."

jamspoon:TFA: In 1517, the Mercers' guild complained that many of their apprentices "have greatly mysordered theymself", spending their masters' money on "harlotes... dyce, cardes and other unthrifty games".

Jim_Callahan:Fissile: Kids were put to work @14 years of age pretty much in every society until recently. Child labor was only outlawed in the US in 1938. The concept of the "teenager" was devised by some Mad Ave hucksters back in the 50s.

This. "Teenagers" were not a thing until the last century in anything other than the most literal sense. You were a child, then you were an adult. The change corresponds to increasingly universal education and the dominance of specialist techne in both basic quality of life and the larger cultural landscape. Those things require a significant non-productive training period for the typical citizen.

Hell, for a good chunk of the middle ages, as the article points out, "children" weren't a thing either. Either you were an infant and got a bit of a pass or you were expected to maintain basically the same standards of behavior and productivity as a modern adult-aged person scaled down to your approximate mass. A child was just a physically smaller, weaker person, beyond that no difference.

Well, yes and no. In Reviving Ophelia a lot of attention is given to organizations for the protection and education of young women. They go back a fair piece. It was recognized that there was a stage between childhood and full adulthood, characterized by increasing responsibility but not the full adult measure. An older girl would, for instance, have a lot to do with the raising of her younger siblings. But she wasn't expected to have kids of her own until her early twenties. She would work at the household business or elsewhere but still had certain protections under the law that she wouldn't as a completely grown woman. Even in subsistence agriculture and hunting/gathering pre-teen and young teen children don't pull their (literal) own weight in calories produced.

So the answer is that when you look closely it become a lot more interesting and less simple.

TFA: "You've got quite a number of young men who are in apprenticeships who have got no hope of getting a workshop and a business of their own," says Jeremy Goldberg. "You've got numbers of somewhat disillusioned and disenfranchised young men, who may be predisposed to challenging authority, because they have nothing invested in it."

When reading historical accounts of how children were raised long ago, you have to first understand that you're not reading studies of how children were raised, but the social elites' visions and self-centered accounts. Remember, education back then was mostly exclusive to the rich, nobility and clergy.

So, imagine if all that was ever written about parenting was authored by today's politicians, investment bankers and fundies. Some of it will be accurate in the sense that that's how they raised their own children, but a whole steaming elephant pile of it will be some really sick shiat that would horrify any sane parents of the day.

dragonchild:you have to first understand that you're not reading studies of how children were raised

Studies have their own criticisms. But remember:

What you're reading, in historical accounts, is what someone dained to write down. You'll never know what they left out, what they were lying about, and what is just pure fantasy without multiple sources. That's true of ANY historical account, even today.

That's what history is. Trying to find as many voices as possible and sifting out the repeating themes. Somewhere where all the voices say the same thing is the truth.